PC-12 vs. Turbo Commander
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quote came from a CFI in the mid 80's. Think he was trying to get across that millions do/have used single engined aircraft and have faith in them.
I used to go across the channel 2/3 times a week in a Arrow II from Bournemouth and Southampton. You tend to think (at least I did) more about an engine failure once over the water.
I used to go across the channel 2/3 times a week in a Arrow II from Bournemouth and Southampton. You tend to think (at least I did) more about an engine failure once over the water.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quote came from a CFI in the mid 80's. Think he was trying to get across that millions do/have used single engined aircraft and have faith in them.
Have you ever flown a multi-engine airplane?
This really does nothing to instill faith in the single, you see.
Such a statement says nothing about the safety of a single, but says poor things about the speaker.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: USA Texas
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally an aviator that gets it
You hit the nail on the head, if you lose
an engine on a multi engine aircraft and
their is no damage or injuries their are
no reports submitted, these are the exact
numbers you need to determine which is
safer a single or twin engine aircraft. I
have personally seen several PT6 turbine
engines fail in flight, luckily they were all
on twin engine equipment and made safe
landings on one engine. I watched a low
time factory overhauled PT6 engine on a
Beech 1900 C model quit 3 times in 2 days
It had a almost undetectable vibration in
the prop gear box at high power settings
which broke the Py air line from the fuel
control unit to the prop gov. The engine
than goes to idle. This is such a prevalent
problem on the PT6 that the Cessna Caravan
has a override detent on the throttle that
dumps unmetered fuel into the engine
to keep it running. The bottom line is
that turbine engines are designed, built
and maintained by men, non of them
are 100 percent reliable.
an engine on a multi engine aircraft and
their is no damage or injuries their are
no reports submitted, these are the exact
numbers you need to determine which is
safer a single or twin engine aircraft. I
have personally seen several PT6 turbine
engines fail in flight, luckily they were all
on twin engine equipment and made safe
landings on one engine. I watched a low
time factory overhauled PT6 engine on a
Beech 1900 C model quit 3 times in 2 days
It had a almost undetectable vibration in
the prop gear box at high power settings
which broke the Py air line from the fuel
control unit to the prop gov. The engine
than goes to idle. This is such a prevalent
problem on the PT6 that the Cessna Caravan
has a override detent on the throttle that
dumps unmetered fuel into the engine
to keep it running. The bottom line is
that turbine engines are designed, built
and maintained by men, non of them
are 100 percent reliable.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: USA Texas
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at a KA 200 with belly pod
Their have been 30 PC12s destroyed in accidents
3 of those were engine failures, out of the 200+
Cessna Caravan accidents about 15 percent have
been power lose. I have personally seen several
PT6 turbine engines fail in flight, luckily they
were all twin engine equipment and made safe
landings on one engine. As more people buy
into the sales hype that a single engine turbine
are just as safe as a twin, the numbers of these
aircraft will continue to grow, and the numbers
of these aircraft involved in accidents caused
by power lose will also increase. For what you
will pay for a new PC12 you could have a
refurbished King Air 200 with belly pod to
match the PC12s capacity, and high float
gear to match the PC12s off airport capability.
The KA will do something the PC12 will never
do fly all day long full of people on one engine.
The bottom line is turbine engines are designed.
built and maintained by men it is impossible
for them to be 100 percent reliable.
3 of those were engine failures, out of the 200+
Cessna Caravan accidents about 15 percent have
been power lose. I have personally seen several
PT6 turbine engines fail in flight, luckily they
were all twin engine equipment and made safe
landings on one engine. As more people buy
into the sales hype that a single engine turbine
are just as safe as a twin, the numbers of these
aircraft will continue to grow, and the numbers
of these aircraft involved in accidents caused
by power lose will also increase. For what you
will pay for a new PC12 you could have a
refurbished King Air 200 with belly pod to
match the PC12s capacity, and high float
gear to match the PC12s off airport capability.
The KA will do something the PC12 will never
do fly all day long full of people on one engine.
The bottom line is turbine engines are designed.
built and maintained by men it is impossible
for them to be 100 percent reliable.
Mike Tyson used to say 'everyone has a plan until they get hit'
Its the same with a single, no matter how sophisticated, all your planning goes out the door when that one engine dies and there's nowhere to land.
If you're over the ocean, a built up area or any number of other inhospitable places you could pay the ultimate price.
Its the same with a single, no matter how sophisticated, all your planning goes out the door when that one engine dies and there's nowhere to land.
If you're over the ocean, a built up area or any number of other inhospitable places you could pay the ultimate price.
Last edited by stilton; 17th Sep 2014 at 09:43.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to necropost, but it needs to be done for posterity.
Back on topic. A Garrett turbine is about 20-30% more fuel efficient compared to a PT6. So a Turbo Commander with the -10 engine will burn about 380-400pph (that's about 58gal/hr) in total doing 290kts. That's about 100pph, or 14gals less than a PC12. That's having more horsepower and going faster. Overhaul also much cheaper than on the big PT6's. I would say it's a wash between overhauling 2x -10's vs 1x big PT6. So as you can see the myth that a single is always cheaper does not apply here.
Which begs the question - if there's no cost penalty for going faster, save fuel and save on purchase price - wouldn't you rather have a twin?
Back on topic. A Garrett turbine is about 20-30% more fuel efficient compared to a PT6. So a Turbo Commander with the -10 engine will burn about 380-400pph (that's about 58gal/hr) in total doing 290kts. That's about 100pph, or 14gals less than a PC12. That's having more horsepower and going faster. Overhaul also much cheaper than on the big PT6's. I would say it's a wash between overhauling 2x -10's vs 1x big PT6. So as you can see the myth that a single is always cheaper does not apply here.
Which begs the question - if there's no cost penalty for going faster, save fuel and save on purchase price - wouldn't you rather have a twin?
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tad more fuel?
zlakarma, I don´t understand why the comparison between a new PC12 and an very old design with comparatively little numbers built.
Why not look at a good KingAir B200? With Raisbeck mods, maybe a Blackhawk mod, Winglets and retrofitted avionics, preferably after S/N 1476 (the new cabin interior), you can get a very good example at a substancially lower price than a new PC 12 and enjoy twin engine safety. The PC 12 is surely a good aeroplane (haven't flown one), the B200 I know inside out and it is - IMHO - one of the best airplanes one can buy in its class. Sturdy, big, easy to fly, good reliability, good looks...
Yes she sips a tad more fuel than a AC, but one can actually talk to each other when sitting inside. And only one thing is better than a PT 6 - two of em! P&W dependable power.
Do yourself a favour and buy an airplane where you can get simtraining. Even if you are not flying yourself, then have your pilots do it. THAT is the best investment on safety you can make.
Why not look at a good KingAir B200? With Raisbeck mods, maybe a Blackhawk mod, Winglets and retrofitted avionics, preferably after S/N 1476 (the new cabin interior), you can get a very good example at a substancially lower price than a new PC 12 and enjoy twin engine safety. The PC 12 is surely a good aeroplane (haven't flown one), the B200 I know inside out and it is - IMHO - one of the best airplanes one can buy in its class. Sturdy, big, easy to fly, good reliability, good looks...
Yes she sips a tad more fuel than a AC, but one can actually talk to each other when sitting inside. And only one thing is better than a PT 6 - two of em! P&W dependable power.
Do yourself a favour and buy an airplane where you can get simtraining. Even if you are not flying yourself, then have your pilots do it. THAT is the best investment on safety you can make.
A Garre
we have a 6100 tbo on -135's. company I used to be at had a 9000 TBO on -67's.
I only have 1000ish on the garretts, but 10K+ on the Pratts. I've shut down 3 p&w's 2 due to oil loss, and one full on S^&t the bed.
I don't fly singles anymore
I only have 1000ish on the garretts, but 10K+ on the Pratts. I've shut down 3 p&w's 2 due to oil loss, and one full on S^&t the bed.
I don't fly singles anymore
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Bedford Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbo Commander
Well I am an old guy and like 2 burning..I have about 5000 hour in every type of turbo Commander built and an 840 (690C) with dash 10s is hard to beat...get one with a Garmin panel and you good to go....bout 300 knots 540 pounds.....now here is the bad part old airplane , parts might be hard to come by....you have to learn to taxi it...I did read someone sad the TPE 331 was finicky well not true just learn to run them....years ago when battery tech wasn't as fine as it is today they could be tricky but today no problems with hot starts.....if it were were me I would buy a Commander......
Put a battery minder on your plane and leave it plugged in between flights will make it last prob 30% longer. 219$ battery minder vs 3800$ battery, easy economics even without taking into account possible engine wear reduction due to cooler starts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pergatory
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Tyson used to say 'everyone has a plan until they get hit'
Its the same with a single, no matter how sophisticated, all your planning goes out the door when that one engine dies and there's nowhere to land.
If you're over the ocean, a built up area or any number of other inhospitable places you could pay the ultimate price.
Its the same with a single, no matter how sophisticated, all your planning goes out the door when that one engine dies and there's nowhere to land.
If you're over the ocean, a built up area or any number of other inhospitable places you could pay the ultimate price.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Maun
Age: 59
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Maun
Age: 59
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 71
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread, learned a lot.
But coming back to the TS, if I would start a thread like this I would be more active, especially asking a few guys here who clearly have experience.
And at least have the dignity to report somewhere in the thread what choice was made, IF any was made....
I bet it was some SIM pilot youngster...
But coming back to the TS, if I would start a thread like this I would be more active, especially asking a few guys here who clearly have experience.
And at least have the dignity to report somewhere in the thread what choice was made, IF any was made....
I bet it was some SIM pilot youngster...